About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
and their conclusion was, it was impossible to determine whether it had reduced any crime in the united states, in 2005, the national research council looked again. their conclusion was that the government's collection of data about guns is so poor, that it's impossible to understand whether any good is coming of these laws. you'd hate to reduce it to something as bureaucratic as the federal government's inability to track these guns, but that is about what it comes down to. there is just no evidence that those laws make any difference. >> in fact, paul, gun violence has fallen since the assault weapons ban expired. >> paul: in 2004. >> in 2004. the relevant question is that these are proposals being put forward in response to sandy hook and gun violence overall in the country. so, will they address that problem? the university background check would have been passed by the person who bought the gun used in connecticut. >> paul: well, let me argue that some the things he's proposed on mental health, easing the laws hipaa, a federal privacy law, and like administrators in schools or doctors and medical
and i don't believe the votes are there in the united states senate or the house to pass anything like the carbon tax, or the democrats are talking an energy tax, like a gasoline tax, kim is right. if they're going to do this, through the regulatory angle and outlaw in that way. >> paul: but then, james, why mention it so prominently, or was this sort after bait and switch for the environmentalists and mention it and in policy terms don't. >> there may be some bait and switch, but this is key. if he doesn't need to get anything through the congress, like the potomac swatch-- >> kim strassel. >> so well. they think that they have a court decision a few years empowers them to regulate carbon. they think they're off to the races here and this suggests to me that maybe the play is, with all of the business community expecting an approval of the keystone pipeline, the president might approve the pipeline, but then really ratchet down on the use of the oil going through that pipeline and i think he might be able to say to environmentalists. >> paul: how would they do that, they won't build t
sort of sprung it out on people. i still don't believe the votes are there in the united states senate and the house to pass anything like either the carbon tax or by the way the democrats are also talking about maybe an energy tax, like a gasoline tax. there is no political support there. that's why i think kim is right. if they are going to do this it's going to have to be through the regulatory angle trying to outlaw carbon in that way. >> james, why mention it so prominently or was this sort and switch for the environmentalists. you mention it re tore rickly and say i'm really behind you. in policy terms, you don't give them anything. >> there may be some bait and switch. i think this is the key. if he doesn't neeyd to get anythingt. through the congress, as the potomac watch column in friday's journal. >> kim strousal, there is a lot of regulatory authority they think they have. court decision a few years ago empowers them to regulate carbon. they think they are off to the races here. so this suggests to me that maybe the play is, with all of the business community expecting an ap
them that. this is not about them being obstructionist, this is about them trying to save the united states from becoming greece, or argentina. >> well, steve, briefly, how important is the revolt, the conservative revolt against boehner briefly? >> you know, there's a lot of agitation, paul. it's not just the republicans, the dozen or two dozen that are angry at boehner. they're also being touted by these outside groups on the right and by the way, in some cases i think that some of those criticisms are unfair, but the first job i think that john boehner has to do is reunify the party. if john boehner agrees to any new taxes i think this mini revolt will be a full-scaled revote. >> thanks to all of you, we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. aig? we said we were going to turn it around, and we did. woman: we're helping joplin, missouri, come back from a devastating tornado. man: and now we're helping the t recover from hurricane sandy. we're a leading global insurance company, based right here in america. we've repaid every dollar america len
40 or 50 years the united states made all of these social commitments to the population, social security, medicare, medicaid, now obamacare. >> paul: well, we have. >> and we have. and they think, the conventional wisdom shall the simpson-bowles type argument is, we can't afford this, that out 25 years from now, all of our taxes will be going to pay for these things. the obama democrats believe we made these commitments and we have to find a way to pay for them. they do not want to cut the spending. and so, u.s. spending, which has been about 20% of gdp since 1969, i think, they're trying to get it up to around 24 or 25% of gdp. we keep repeating this number, but in a 15 trillion dollar economy, every percent of gdp is a tremendous amount of spending. but tax revenue, the last three years, has been down around 16% of gdp. that's a tremendous gap. and they want to raise taxes to close that gap. >> but part that have reduction, no, normally, it's about 18, 18 1/2, and it's popped up under bill clinton's presidency above 20%, if you have economic growth. the 16% is because the grow
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)